Um… I thought the whole idea about Seasteads was to be outside national sovereignty, about 200 miles away from any coastline. Trips to shore would be rare due to the distance involved and only for trade, buying those things Seasteads can’t produce (toilet paper, SPAM, etc.). For ecological dumping to become an issue, the government involved would have to carry it all the way past its boundries and bring the ships all the way back. The sort of coastal dumping you describe, as I understand it, are all relatively close to the shoreline. (Ironically, though, there already is one in the area between California and Washington, according to the wiki.) Hence, seasteads and eco-dumping should be far apart and have nothing to do with each other. Plus, there are plenty of environmental watchdogs who would be more than happy to attack land-governments for dumping. Hope this helps.

hmm, well I dont agree with dumping, but hey i dont agree with nukes, so maybe im biasd.

However if you have your own sea territory, & Marine designated protection zones backed up by your environmental agency, why not just board them for breaking your marine protection laws, then impound the (exspensive) vessel that was doing the dumping, & any other vessel that dose the same or trys to obstruct the course of justice?

then sell off the impounded vessels if within 3 months or somthing (maritime law probably covers this)

Someone mentioned my comment about dead water areas due to fertilizer run off not really being an issue. These chemicals do not bring beneficial nutrients to the sea but rather kill off the micro bacteria that oxygenates the water. The dead water areas have NO LIFE in them due to the lack of oxygen. This problem is a growing one and I take it seriously, but there is no single factory to target…

Oh yes there is my friend!

That’s the beauty of centralization of power.

Monsanto for instance, and it’s corporate executives.

They have killed thousands probably millions already.

Maybe we can catch them out yachting.

We can have lists of people,

with the assosciated attrocities they’ve commited.

Then tribes interested in helping the environment,

can go and punish them to their own satisfaction.

I am glad that many here seem to be peaceful folks. We have to consider than some seasteaders may not be.

Live Well!

-Jason

You’re in the army, and you talk about peace?

Seems like utter hypocricy to me.

The whole point of a military is to cause havoc and destruction.

The american military does it in a wasteful glutinous manner,

since that’s most reflective of the home-culture.

One of the main targets for eco-balancing,

can be prison-breaking, because prisons are unconstitutional.

7. let entity be traveler or do move

Though we can interact with people

12. let entity be universal or do intersect
13. let entity be multiversal or do union

The ability for an entity to move 7 is more primitive, so more important.

If you suppress the trunk of a tree, the leaves will fall from lack of nutrients,

If a country was dumping “pollution” near me, I’d simply thank them for it and render it into usable products. Plastic? Thanks, I needed some building materials. Fertilizer? Great, I can use that in my farms. Nuclear materials? If it doesn’t sink to the bottom of the ocean, and my ‘stead is advanced enough (city sized), I’ll use bacteria to separate it out, and reprocess it for use in my reactors.

Using seasteading as a vehicle to engage in “Road Warrior”/”Avatar-esque” anarchist war porn fantasies accomplishes nothing but harming the credibility of the concept.

If anyone ever feels financially threatened by seasteading enough to engage in a PR campaign against it: posts like this would be the fuel they would use to burn it at the stake and scare off investors.

But I’m the last one to advocate censorship, so please: by all means, carry on.

I honestly think political speculation should have it’s own forum called “the looney bin” to distance TSI and the serious engineering/business/environmental discussions from this sort of craziness.

The forum description could be:

“By all means: have the sort of speculative discussions that science fiction is made of, but please do so here in an unofficial capacity.”

If anyone ever feels financially threatened by seasteading enough to engage in a PR campaign against it: posts like this would be the fuel they would use to burn it at the stake and scare off investors.

If you’re talking about the post which was immediately prior to yours, it was for the purpose of spamming a link. Both the post and the spammer’s account are now gone.

Note: The spammer added the link after making the initial posting so you may have seen it when it didn’t have the spam link.

I think tusavision has a good point… Ecoterrorism would be the wrong way to ‘prove’ that Seasteading could help save mankind from ourselves… Why bring the negative outlook upon a new venture, into a new frontier, with something as stupid as ecoterrorism? Sure, I’m all for ‘save the whales/dolphins/etc.’, BUT using extreme measures puts all attempts to live on the sea at risk…